This afternoon, I spoke with Governor Malloy and FBI Director Mueller. I offered Governor Malloy my condolences on behalf of the nation, and made it clear he will have every single resource that he needs to investigate this heinous crime, care for the victims, counsel their families.

We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. And each time I learn the news I react not as a President, but as anybody else would -- as a parent. And that was especially true today. I know there's not a parent in America who doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.

The majority of those who died today were children -- beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them -- birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own. Among the fallen were also teachers -- men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.

So our hearts are broken today -- for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the families of the adults who were lost. Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children's innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain.

As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it's an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago -- these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

This evening, Michelle and I will do what I know every parent in America will do, which is hug our children a little tighter and we'll tell them that we love them, and we'll remind each other how deeply we love one another. But there are families in Connecticut who cannot do that tonight. And they need all of us right now. In the hard days to come, that community needs us to be at our best as Americans. And I will do everything in my power as President to help.

Because while nothing can fill the space of a lost child or loved one, all of us can extend a hand to those in need -- to remind them that we are there for them, that we are praying for them, that the love they felt for those they lost endures not just in their memories but also in ours.

May God bless the memory of the victims and, in the words of Scripture, heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds.

--President Obama on the Connecticut Shootings

Perhaps now we can start BANNING GUNS! It is way past due.

If this guy didn't have guns...HE WOULDN'T have shot anyone!

Army of GOD wrote:I joined this game because it's so similar to Call of Duty.

No legal guns = Bad guys find it much harder to get hold of guns (and ammunition, in the UK I have heard rumours about who I could go and talk to to get them to ask "a friend" for them to ask "a friend" who could sell me an illegal gun fairly cheaply, but the ammo would cost me a LOT, more than the gun itself in most cases - source = used to work in the security trade and knew people that knew people who explained to me once that ammo is the thing that's really the expensive bit here)

No legal guns = Bad guys find it much harder to get hold of guns (and ammunition, in the UK I have heard rumours about who I could go and talk to to get them to ask "a friend" for them to ask "a friend" who could sell me an illegal gun fairly cheaply, but the ammo would cost me a LOT, more than the gun itself in most cases - source = used to work in the security trade and knew people that knew people who explained to me once that ammo is the thing that's really the expensive bit here)

So, instead of simply enacting the kind of gun laws that have had the effect of dramatically lowering violence in other countries, we should, what, post armed guards everywhere? And strawmanning people saying that anybody who supports tighter gun control wants to take away ALL the guns is just the kind of rhetorical accuracy you've become synonymous with.

No legal guns = Bad guys find it much harder to get hold of guns (and ammunition, in the UK I have heard rumours about who I could go and talk to to get them to ask "a friend" for them to ask "a friend" who could sell me an illegal gun fairly cheaply, but the ammo would cost me a LOT, more than the gun itself in most cases - source = used to work in the security trade and knew people that knew people who explained to me once that ammo is the thing that's really the expensive bit here)

But how realistic is it that we can get rid of guns/weapons?

Regardless of that, what is the right thing to do? To allow anyone to have a gun, or to try and restrict guns as much as humanly possible to those who are in law enforcement or similar with very tight controls?

The issue isn't even generally that bad guys get guns, but that insane guys get guns. Bad guys will nearly always find ways around the system, but bad guys generally use their guns as part of plans to do other bad things. Insane guys don't have the same contacts that bad guys do. People who go on these kinds of shooting sprees are generally not bad guys, but insane guys, and bad guys don't generally like to do business with insane guys as it opens them up to being found out when insane guy gets caught and blabs all about where he got the gun.

No legal guns = Bad guys find it much harder to get hold of guns (and ammunition, in the UK I have heard rumours about who I could go and talk to to get them to ask "a friend" for them to ask "a friend" who could sell me an illegal gun fairly cheaply, but the ammo would cost me a LOT, more than the gun itself in most cases - source = used to work in the security trade and knew people that knew people who explained to me once that ammo is the thing that's really the expensive bit here)

But how realistic is it that we can get rid of guns/weapons?

Gun laws passed in Japan back in 1958, it might take a bit of time, but if we don't begin, we won't see any results in the future.

Max Fisher wrote: It is really hard to get your hands on a gun in Japan. Handguns are absolutely banned except on on-duty police, they can’t even carry them when they’re off duty. You can’t buy rifles unless you owned one before 1971 when they passed the first law banning all rifles. You can have a shotgun or an air rifle but it is a very difficult and onerous process to get one, which is why Japan has one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the world. There are 6 guns privately held for every 1000 people. In the United States, there are 890 guns for every 1000 people. Gun violence is also extremely low. In 2008 in the U.S., there were 12,000 firearm related homicides. In all of Japan, there were 11. That’s fewer people than were killed just in the Aurora shooting. There were 587 Americans killed by accidental gun discharges. There were none killed in Japan.

Canada has much stricter gun control laws than America, but guns or ammo aren't nearly as tough to obtain as crispybits said about England. Rifles and shotguns are prevalent but handguns are scarce and very few have permits to own them, and a permit to carry one is pretty much non-existent outside of law enforcement. If you see one it is most likely illegal and coincidentally, most likely came from the US. No one on the street is packing, or in their cars. Shootings are a lot more rare.

Last edited by notyou2 on Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No legal guns = Bad guys find it much harder to get hold of guns (and ammunition, in the UK I have heard rumours about who I could go and talk to to get them to ask "a friend" for them to ask "a friend" who could sell me an illegal gun fairly cheaply, but the ammo would cost me a LOT, more than the gun itself in most cases - source = used to work in the security trade and knew people that knew people who explained to me once that ammo is the thing that's really the expensive bit here)

But how realistic is it that we can get rid of guns/weapons?

Regardless of that, what is the right thing to do? To allow anyone to have a gun, or to try and restrict guns as much as humanly possible to those who are in law enforcement or similar with very tight controls?

The issue isn't even generally that bad guys get guns, but that insane guys get guns. Bad guys will nearly always find ways around the system, but bad guys generally use their guns as part of plans to do other bad things. Insane guys don't have the same contacts that bad guys do. People who go on these kinds of shooting sprees are generally not bad guys, but insane guys, and bad guys don't generally like to do business with insane guys as it opens them up to being found out when insane guy gets caught and blabs all about where he got the gun.

Crispy that is the most intelligent comment I have heard in favor of gun control in any gun control debate. I am totally against banning guns, They are the only thing between democracy and Tyranny. After today's events (and your comment to a degree) I am in favor of tighter controls. I believe however that it is irrational to think any real change would happen overnight. I am seriously pissed that we are taxed at such high rates "for the kids" and yet there was less security than a grocery store at that school. It sickens me that the people (government) we entrust our kids safety to are so damned relaxed on security in today's world.

Last edited by JCR on Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

An intensity of media/pop culture interest in one nation and general media/pop culture disinterest in other nations often magnifies problems. When Britney ODs on coke it's covered on TMZ. When the guy in the trailer park down the street ODs on coke it isn't. For instance -

- From 2002 to 2012, 26 people were killed* in Finland during spree shootings. The population of Finland is 5.4 million. In other words, 4.8 per 1 million Finns were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in Finland is considered Restrictive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health.

- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health.

* 11 dead in 2008 Kauhajoki shooting, 6 dead in 2009 Sello shooting, 9 dead in 2009 Jokela shooting** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period

saxitoxin wrote:An intensity of media/pop culture interest in one nation and general media/pop culture disinterest in other nations often magnifies problems. When Britney ODs on coke it's covered on TMZ. When the guy in the trailer park down the street ODs on coke it isn't. For instance -

- From 2002 to 2012, 26 people were killed* in Finland during spree shootings. The population of Finland is 5.4 million. In other words, 4.8 per 1 million Finns were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in Finland is considered Restrictive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health.

- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health.

* 11 dead in 2008 Kauhajoki shooting, 6 dead in 2009 Sello shooting, 9 dead in 2009 Jokela shooting** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period

saxitoxin wrote:An intensity of media/pop culture interest in one nation and general media/pop culture disinterest in other nations often magnifies problems. When Britney ODs on coke it's covered on TMZ. When the guy in the trailer park down the street ODs on coke it isn't. For instance -

- From 2002 to 2012, 26 people were killed* in Finland during spree shootings. The population of Finland is 5.4 million. In other words, 4.8 per 1 million Finns were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in Finland is considered Restrictive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health.

- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health.

* 11 dead in 2008 Kauhajoki shooting, 6 dead in 2009 Sello shooting, 9 dead in 2009 Jokela shooting** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period

saxitoxin wrote:- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health. [/list]

...

** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period[/size]

saxitoxin wrote:- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health. [/list]

...

** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period[/size]

I don't think that's an accurate assumption:

Okay, if 100% of spree shooting deaths occurred during 2002-2012, and none occurred from 1984-2002, then the per-capita spree shooting fatality rate increases to 0.9 per 1 million, versus Finland's 4.8 per 1 million. That seems tenuous but I'll concede that point, if you like.

saxitoxin wrote:- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health. [/list]

...

** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period[/size]

I don't think that's an accurate assumption:

Okay, if 100% of spree shooting deaths occurred during 2002-2012, and none occurred from 1984-2002, then the per-capita spree shooting fatality rate increases to 0.9 per 1 million, versus Finland's 4.8 per 1 million. That seems tenuous but I'll concede that point, if you like.

saxitoxin wrote:An intensity of media/pop culture interest in one nation and general media/pop culture disinterest in other nations often magnifies problems. When Britney ODs on coke it's covered on TMZ. When the guy in the trailer park down the street ODs on coke it isn't. For instance -

- From 2002 to 2012, 26 people were killed* in Finland during spree shootings. The population of Finland is 5.4 million. In other words, 4.8 per 1 million Finns were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in Finland is considered Restrictive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health.

- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health.

* 11 dead in 2008 Kauhajoki shooting, 6 dead in 2009 Sello shooting, 9 dead in 2009 Jokela shooting** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period

But those are "spree" shootings and they can be skewed.

How do the handgun shooting statistics compare?

How about the shootings by automatic weapons?

I thought this was a thread about spree shootings.

You're comparing the #1 country for spree shootings in the last 10 years to the #2 country for spree shootings in the last 10 years, and seem to be applying the information from this comparison across the board. The fact that Finns have their own problem concerning mass shootings doesn't mean that Americans don't, or that gun control doesn't work.

saxitoxin wrote:- From 2002 to 2012, 99 people were killed** in the U.S. during spree shootings. The population of USA is 314 million. In other words, 0.3 per 1 million Americans were killed in spree shootings. Firearms regulation in USA is considered Permissive by the University of Sydney School of Public Health. [/list]

...

** figure is 276 since 1984, assumption of even body count spread over period of years and adjusted to 99 for 2002-2012 time period[/size]

I don't think that's an accurate assumption:

Okay, if 100% of spree shooting deaths occurred during 2002-2012, and none occurred from 1984-2002, then the per-capita spree shooting fatality rate increases to 0.9 per 1 million, versus Finland's 4.8 per 1 million. That seems tenuous but I'll concede that point, if you like.

I don't know what this has to do with spree shootings which, up until my post, had been the topic of this thread, to wit:

crispybits wrote:People who go on these kinds of shooting sprees are generally not bad guys, but insane guys

CreepersWiener wrote:

Barack Obama wrote:As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it's an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago -- these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

Sackett58 wrote:Do you even comprehend what happened today.

etc. etc.

If we're going to move the goal posts once our position become untenable, that's fine, let's just get everyone on the same page before we bring in the backhoe.

The fact that Finns have their own problem concerning mass shootings doesn't mean that Americans don't, or that gun control doesn't work.

So what is the Finns problem with mass shootings?

(BTW, your risk of dying in a spree shooting in Germany is almost on-par with the U.S. And in Norway quite a bit more, obviously, but I didn't bother with that because it would have provoked the same outrage of an exceptional oddity that was just invoked to dismiss Finland. Of course, if we can find a reason to dismiss every piece of contravening data, and only include supportive data, I agree that the raw slightly modified facts would support restrictive firearms regulation as the start/finish solution to spree shootings, and free us of the uncomfortable burden of dealing with causes rather than symptoms.)

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in the thread, is it ok to take away the ability of a law abiding "good" citizen to protect themself, their family, and their home? The discussion has centered around bad guys getting the guns anyways. Not throwing my opinion out there, just wondering.